Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Axe

Kennedy Retires

Recommended Posts

Still nothing. What a shame. Your typical birdbrain crap has

no substance and never will. Just spam Red Rectangle. Nothing. Sad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thraten_woodpecker_thaumatrope_5fpi_by_i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, how great a nominee is he?

He is outstanding. THIS Supreme Court judge will go by our

CONSTITUTION, not like the liberal hacks on the court, that go by

leftwing public opinion, and the head of the DNC.

The dems hated every single one of the nominees ...all 25...

because they lost the election.

Tough crackers, deep state sombeitches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution? That's that thing the founding fathers created with built in means to update and modify it, right? Because they understood they were creating a living document that would adjust to changing times (centuries). That we've  actually updated multiple times. That one, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

The Constitution? That's that thing the founding fathers created with built in means to update and modify it, right? Because they understood they were creating a living document that would adjust to changing times (centuries). That we've  actually updated multiple times. That one, right?

Not only that but it's made of parchment and would probably burn easily! 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still Woodrow, I would doubt that any candidate is going to come out and say they couldn't care less about the Constitution and think we should be ruled buy whatever public opinion is at the moment. Even though that's probably true in a lot of ways for a lot of folks.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Understanding that the Constitution was made as a living document with the intention that it would be updated over time isn't the same as saying you "couldn't care less about the Constitution". 

Hell, the bill of rights wasn't part of the original Constitution

Ending slavery. Letting women vote. Term limits for presidents. All just public opinion at the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to do away with all of them again?  Is that what you're saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

 Understanding that the Constitution was made as a living document with the intention that it would be updated over time isn't the same as saying you "couldn't care less about the Constitution". 

Hell, the bill of rights wasn't part of the original Constitution

Ending slavery. Letting women vote. Term limits for presidents. All just public opinion at the moment

And how's that working out for you?

😅🤣😂😆

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

And how's that working out for you?

😅🤣😂😆

WSS

How's what?

 

I'm just always dumbfounded by the people that act like the Constitution is written in stone. When it very clearly was written to be... what's the word... amended. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAFBF said:

And weren't some on the right concerned he wasn't conservative enough? Yeesh. We seem to be trending further and further apart. Need that third, moderate party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

How's what?

 

I'm just always dumbfounded by the people that act like the Constitution is written in stone. When it very clearly was written to be... what's the word... amended. 

Then you should be equally dumbfounded by the people, and I mean just about each and every member of all three branches of the United States government, as well as with private citizens and most of the members of this board on either side, who praise the Constitution and to demand it be respected.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Then you should be equally dumbfounded by the people, and I mean just about each and every member of all three branches of the United States government, as well as with private citizens and most of the members of this board on either side, who praise the Constitution and to demand it be respected.

WSS

I never said anything about not praising or respecting it...

Understanding that it was designed to be a living document that grows and adapts to the times, as it's done multiple times already, isn't the same as "disrespecting" it or trashing it. 

It's like everything has to be one extreme or another. Has to be as divisive as possible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I never said anything about not praising or respecting it...

Understanding that it was designed to be a living document that grows and adapts to the times, as it's done multiple times already, isn't the same as "disrespecting" it or trashing it. 

It's like everything has to be one extreme or another. Has to be as divisive as possible...

It certainly does, and that's unfortunate. But even the lefties should admit that it's a little bit ironic to hear people like Schumer yapping about Roe versus Wade and how it is indelibly etched in stone.

Shouldn't they be saying great let's take a look at everything maybe Roe v Wade needs to be changed or eliminated! That's how the Constitution is meant to be! And yet...

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.yaf.org/news/9793-2/

 

The late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia said it best when he declared, “The Constitution is not a living organism… it’s a legal document.” Liberal professors and students will often bash conservatives when they stand up for an orginalist interpretation of the United States Constitution in the classroom. Here are four key responses you can use next time a liberal tells you the Constitution is a living document and needs to be constantly changed.

  1. Use their language to disprove their argument and tell them “Yes, the Constitution is a living document, but not in the way that you think!” It’s very much alive in that it will always be relevant no matter what the cultural or political climate may be.  The Constitution will never be dead. It will always be an integral part of what makes America the greatest nation on earth.
  1. The Constitution is not a dynamic document. It was not meant to be interpreted in a way to achieve a desired policy-based outcome. The authors did not intend for it to be changed every time there was a swing in popular opinion. The legislative branch of government is filled with officials directly elected by the people serves that purpose.
  1. The genius of the United States Constitution is that it was constructed to withstand the test of time. There are ways to add amendments, but the process is extremely difficult for the reason that it was not intended for it to be easily changed.
  1. The Constitution withholds power from the government and gives it to the people. Altering it to give the government more power will be an ultimately irreversible act that can be detrimental to individual liberty.

Constitutional principles, like conservative principles, are timeless. It is the responsibility of conservatives to fight for the preservation of such principles despite the ever-changing political, cultural, and moral climate.  The truths found in the Constitution were self-evident in 1789, and still remain so 227 years later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/opinion/2016/03/09/constitution-living-document/81553232/

Randy Lynch Published 4:10 p.m. MT March 9, 2016 | Updated 4:51 p.m. MT March 9, 2016
     
Randy Lynch

(Photo: Robin Zielinski)

With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, people are talking more about the Constitution being a “living document.” It’s the idea that it evolves to fit the times; that constitutionality is based on the way things ought to be. The problem is, that’s decided based on current feelings. The rock-solid principles that make up the foundation of our country become irrelevant and we find our nation instead sitting atop a foundation of shifting sand.

A living Constitution changes an essential dynamic. Legislation no longer comes solely from the Legislature, but from the courts, which have no business making law. The rights of the individual take a back seat to the greater good and whatever is deemed as how things ought to be.

Gun control? We have to make people feel safe, so individual rights to keep and bear arms are diminished. Same-sex marriage? In the name of equality, we’ll force those with religious objections to participate in same-sex functions, thereby diminishing their equality while elevating the equality of others. Abortion? We’ll manufacture a woman’s right to choose to mask the fact that we’re denying the first right, life, to children in the womb at the same time.

 

This becomes a form of tyranny originating in our courts. As Justice Scalia said about supporters of a living Constitution, “They want society to do things their way now and forever, coast to coast.”

Our Constitution should be interpreted through the words, meanings and intents of the document itself, not by twisting it to fit an agenda. It’s a legally binding agreement between our government and the American people of every generation. It was created by our best and brightest to embody principles that don’t tarnish and don’t become obsolete with the passage of time.

Does it mean that we should still have slavery or women should have limited rights, as was the case when it as written? Of course not. That’s simply baseless propaganda from those who want to weasel around our foundational principles. Our nation was founded by honorable men who understood that they were imperfect and limited. It’s part of why they made it clear that our rights come from God and not from any document or government. They created a system to allow us to continually strive for a more perfect union, but to do so while protecting the rights of the individual. But we have to be willing to honor that system and not treat it like a roadblock keeping us from what we want, as people like President Obama have said.

 

Slavery was abolished because of our constitutional principles. The same was true for civil rights, women’s suffrage and other positive social changes. It’s a matter of society catching up to our Constitution, not the other way around.

We must return to what’s made this country great by understanding and interpreting the Constitution based on a few guidelines. 1) Be true to the nature of the Constitution, which prevents any one generation from ruling according to the passion of the times. 2) Embrace its purpose to limit government, not expand it. 3) Like all government, the judiciary is supposed to be limited. They are to determine whether laws are consistent with the Constitution, not to create legislation. 4) The words and intentions of the framers are highly relevant in interpretation.

Focusing on results instead of our foundational principles will lead us away from the rule of law toward what Aristotle warned against: the rule of men. Our society cannot survive that level of arbitrary governance and tyranny for very long at all.

Randy Lynch writes The Midnight Ride Blog at midnightride.co and is the co-founder of the New Mexico Conservative Activist Network. Contact him at midnightridenm@gmail.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/03/05/exposing-the-living-document-lie/

Exposing the “Living Document” Lie

You are here:
  1. Home
  2. Constitution
 

Despite all historical evidence to the contrary, it is often claimed that the Constitution is a “living document” that is easily malleable through semantics and modern desires for extended federal power.

This is the view that saturates public schools, the mainstream media, law schools, and politicians. We are even sometimes told that a primary benefit of the United States Constitution is that it can be so easily manipulated at the will of politicians and judges.

However, this view flies directly against the evidence of history, and disputes the words of those who supported the document during the ratification debates. After all, the Constitution only provided the general government the powers “expressly delegated to it” according to Edmund Randolph, who had the duty of explaining the Constitution to Virginia’s Richmond Convention.

Similarly, when naysayers in South Carolina raised the same concerns of unlimited powers, Charles Pinckney rebuked their claims strongly by echoing these sentiments and insisting, “we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the Constitution.”[1] This clarification was not an isolated phenomenon; the Constitution was described this way in all states by its vigilant supporters.

The plain understanding that the Constitution only gave the general government the powers that were specifically enumerated was not a “theory” during the Constitution’s writing or adoption by the states. On the contrary, it was the only understanding reached by the states, and held until modern reinterpretations of the Constitution took hold. From the origin of the ratification debates, James Wilson’s “State House Yard Speech” confirms this to be the case. To the accusation that the Constitution gave the general government powers which were not explicitly stated, Wilson responded to such an assertion by noting that “everything which is not given is reserved.” Wilson said that power in the Constitution is not granted by “tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union.”[2]

The constitutional model of Britain was considered insufficient in the states because it did not bring about a restricted centralized authority that was held down by specified powers. Britain’s constitution is a series of documents, traditions, and court decisions, which in summation characterize the “British Constitution.” Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense that he found this type of constitutional framework to be “subject to convulsions.” This was stated categorically. After all, it could not be denied that the British government (kings such as John, Charles Stuart, and James II) consistently worked to undermine the liberties clearly spelled out in The Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and English Bill of Rights, and other constitutional documents and happenings.

Britain had a legislature (Parliament), an executive (the king), and a judiciary (the royal courts), so this type of governmental structure can exist without the necessity of a written constitution. Instead of giving the government palpable power to do everything, our founders had the ingenious wherewithal to draft a Constitutional model that is instead based on powers that are explicitly spelled out, chiefly in Article I, Section 8.

If the Constitutional model was truly that of a “living document,” an inquisitive mind may question why the founders made the document extremely difficult to alter through the amendment process notated in Article V. The notion that the states will easily come to the same conclusion on adjusting the Constitution is a faulty one. Obtaining sanction from 38 states on any topic, constitutional issues notwithstanding, is no easy feat. This limitation can be considered as a strong barrier of obstruction that is nearly impossible to circumvent.

It is irrefutable that founders made the document difficult to alter for a reason. Those who espouse views to the contrary do not seek to consider the document “living” because it can be changed; they strive to misinterpret specific clauses within the document to justify actions of an almost unlimited variety, using such content to draw upon a vast reservoir of untapped power. Thomas Jefferson wrote that by doing so, Congress “is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” The tendency to do so was considered constitutionally erroneous and invalid.

Those who advocate the “living document” doctrine typically point to several clauses within the Constitution’s text to justify these views. These clauses are sometimes referred to as the “elastic clauses.” Patrick Henry, a persuasive opponent of the United States Constitution, called them “sweeping clauses” because he believed they would provide overwhelming power to the general government and act to eradicate the power of the states. When it came to Henry and many other voices of opposition, the antagonists were swiftly rebuked by those who were responsible for bringing the states to an understanding of what the Constitution did.

One of the “sweeping clauses” is the Necessary and Proper Clause, which is sometimes used by government to justify a variety of “implied” powers. James Wilson, a leading supporter of the Constitution in Pennsylvania, explained that this prose did no such thing. Wilson stated: “the concluding clause, with which so much fault has been found, gives no more, or other powers; nor does it in any degree go beyond the particular enumeration.”[3] The clause’s text solidifies this view, and is written in a distinctively clear manner: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [emphasis mine].” The Necessary and Proper Clause only gives Congress the ability to perform tasks incidental to carry out the specified enumerated powers. In Virginia, Edmund Randolph responded directly to Patrick Henry regarding the clause. Randolph said: “The gentleman supposes, that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning…in the general constitution, the powers are enumerated.”[4]

The General Welfare Clause is another portion of prose which is used to rationalize the living document model, the portion of Article I, Section 8 which gives Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.” Unfortunately, the modern understanding of this phraseology is completely divergent from the clear meaning of the expression at the time. The clear legal meaning of the phrase, borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, meant a small subset of duties each individual state considered appropriate to delegate to a separate authority. The states gave those powers to the general government out of convenience.

Roger Sherman, who moved to have the phrase added to the Constitution, is the best and most persuasive voice of clarification of the often misunderstood clause. The expression was added on August 25th in Philadelphia, so it could be connected with the clause for laying taxes and duties.[5] In other words, he wanted to make it explicit that taxes could only be collected for the specified powers.

Sherman was recorded as having made the observation that the “objects of the Union” were “few.”[6] Sherman listed “defence against foreign danger,” defense “against internal disputes & a resort to force,” “defence against foreign danger,” and “regulating foreign commerce & drawing revenue from it” as the powers of the general government. This is entirely consistent with Madison’s words from The Federalist and other sources, and was the conclusive understanding that the other representatives held in the Philadelphia Convention and the state conventions afterward. Historian Brion McClanahan writes that the initial proposal for insertion of this clause was rejected because it was considered to be redundant and unnecessary, passing only after Sherman’s persistence.[7]

Madison wrote this about the General Welfare Clause’s plain meaning when objecting to a 1792 bill which called for subsidized fisheries. The General Welfare Clause was cited as justification to pass such a bill. Madison responded:

“I, sir, have always conceived – I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived –that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms.”[8]

In Madison’s estimation, the phrase simply reiterated that the specified powers were tied to “general terms.” In corroboration of Madison’s view was the noteworthy ratification of the Tenth Amendment in 1791, which made clear that powers not delegated are retained by the states or the people.

It is always helpful to revisit the primary sources and happenings of the state ratification conventions to explain what the Constitution did, rather than what modern voices claim. If conflicting, the first is always a more desirable and stronger explanation of truth. When forced to choose between views of what modern influences say about the Constitution, and what the founders and framers said about it, we do ourselves great justice as patriots to choose the latter every single time.


[1] The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Volume IV, 315-316.

[2] The Debate on the Constitution Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Part One, 63-64.

[3] The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Volume II, 436.

[4] The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Volume III, 427.

[5] James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 530.

[6] Ibid, 74.

[7] Brion McClanahan, The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution, 42-43.

[8] United States Congress, A Second Federalist: Congress Creates a Government, Edited by Charles S. Hyneman and George W. Carey (New York: Meredith, 1967), 114.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://herald-review.com/blogs/letters/the-constitution-is-not-a-living-document/article_671e67ba-ae7f-11e2-838d-001a4bcf887a.html

When applied to the Constitution the term living document is leftist propaganda used for evisceration of the Constitution and usurpation. It always increases federal power. It never reduces or limits power.

For the rule of law, the Constitution, to exist, its meaning must remain static. It is not a living document, evolving and conforming to changing times or experiences. The lawful remedy to such issues lies in the amendatory process. James Madison reminded Congress in 1817 that the framers had “marked out in the Constitution itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.”

Thomas Jefferson believed the Constitution could be understood by the average person. But to understand it one must interpret it in light of original intent. Read the Constitution. For clarity study the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, George Washington’s farewell address and other foundational works. The founder’s own words provide the blueprint for understanding.

 

Jefferson voiced this admonition: “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

In light of that original intent one must conclude the Second Amendment guarantees our God-given right to own and bear arms for self defense, self preservation and as a means to deter and repel tyrannical government.

Those arms necessarily must include state of the art firearms equivalent to the military style weapons of the day (the era in which we live). Why? Because we are citizen soldiers (militia) entrusted with the duty to preserve and defend liberty.

 

Monica Seigfreid

Assumption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

https://herald-review.com/blogs/letters/the-constitution-is-not-a-living-document/article_671e67ba-ae7f-11e2-838d-001a4bcf887a.html

When applied to the Constitution the term living document is leftist propaganda used for evisceration of the Constitution and usurpation. It always increases federal power. It never reduces or limits power.

   THIS. The idea that our Constitution can be edited per political feelings, as in, taking AWAY rights and freedoms,

is politically leftwing expediency at it's worst.

  Leftists are the first to demand their free speech rights per our 1st Amendment, and the first to demand that our 2nd Amendment

be "repealed".

    This is what liberals/leftists do. Whatever gives them the political advantage towards more power, more control, more free stuff,

that is the "decision" of their day.

   There are NO RIGHTS when tyranny steps in, and can "interpret" them away.

That is why, for example, the addition of freed slaves, the addition of women voting, the addition of term limits to give

the American people more protection from tyranny. (see putin. and venzuela. and cuba. etc etc).

    There is NO taking away freedoms and protections, no is there any liberal nullifying of a guaranteed freedom, because

the Founding Fathers knew tyranny all too well.

   To say "well, the Constitution has been amended, so we can change it to suit US anytime we want, and take away parts of it..."

is so disingenuous an alleged sentiment, it can not be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

It certainly does, and that's unfortunate. But even the lefties should admit that it's a little bit ironic to hear people like Schumer yapping about Roe versus Wade and how it is indelibly etched in stone.

Shouldn't they be saying great let's take a look at everything maybe Roe v Wade needs to be changed or eliminated! That's how the Constitution is meant to be! And yet...

WSS

Sure, that makes sense. Precedents in law exist for a reason, but I don't think they should be considered written in stone either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Sure, that makes sense. Precedents in law exist for a reason, but I don't think they should be considered written in stone either. 

So it's basically a matter of whose Ox is being gored....

Just for the record do you think Roe v Wade could be looked at again under modern circumstances? 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

So it's basically a matter of whose Ox is being gored....

Just for the record do you think Roe v Wade could be looked at again under modern circumstances? 

WSS

Sure. The whole point I'm getting at is that all of this stuff can be looked at again if warranted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

http://www.yaf.org/news/9793-2/

 

The late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia said it best when he declared, “The Constitution is not a living organism… it’s a legal document.” Liberal professors and students will often bash conservatives when they stand up for an orginalist interpretation of the United States Constitution in the classroom. Here are four key responses you can use next time a liberal tells you the Constitution is a living document and needs to be constantly changed.

  1. Use their language to disprove their argument and tell them “Yes, the Constitution is a living document, but not in the way that you think!” It’s very much alive in that it will always be relevant no matter what the cultural or political climate may be.  The Constitution will never be dead. It will always be an integral part of what makes America the greatest nation on earth.
  1. The Constitution is not a dynamic document. It was not meant to be interpreted in a way to achieve a desired policy-based outcome. The authors did not intend for it to be changed every time there was a swing in popular opinion. The legislative branch of government is filled with officials directly elected by the people serves that purpose.
  1. The genius of the United States Constitution is that it was constructed to withstand the test of time. There are ways to add amendments, but the process is extremely difficult for the reason that it was not intended for it to be easily changed.
  1. The Constitution withholds power from the government and gives it to the people. Altering it to give the government more power will be an ultimately irreversible act that can be detrimental to individual liberty.

Constitutional principles, like conservative principles, are timeless. It is the responsibility of conservatives to fight for the preservation of such principles despite the ever-changing political, cultural, and moral climate.  The truths found in the Constitution were self-evident in 1789, and still remain so 227 years later.

 

Stepping by all of the Conservative rhetoric...

 

1) I don't think the author understand what "disprove" means (which would tie to a constant theme...). That paragraph is a whole bunch of nothing.

2) I agree

3) I agree

4) basically I agree again

 

Of course none of that says the Constitution can't EVER be altered, which is what it seems like you're trying to say. Understanding it's a living document doesn't mean it should be changed every week. But that doesn't make every proposed change some swaying public policy matter. Conservatives want to conserve, stay the same. That's not always going to happen. Was it just a politically driven whim of public opinion that led us to amend the Constitution to allow women to vote? Do you believe that change should have never occurred?

 

Self evident in 1789, though a nationally recognized right to bear arms didn't arrive until years later... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never said it can't be changed. It can be amended. Of course I'm not saying it can't ever be changed.

I AM saying, it can never be detracted from. You can ADD essential liberties and rights, but you can't take them away -

anything else renders the Constitution worthless - subject to the radical whim of any party in control.

  And regarding poltiical parties - it is solely the LEFT that wants activist judges who will legislate from their

positions, per the leftist demands...and it is the CONSERVATIVE judges who look to interpret issues according

the supreme law of the land.

  For instance, we are rife with activist leftist federal judges who rule against Trump because he isn't a leftist.

Not one of these leftist activist judges rules against obamao once. Even when it was OBAMAO who was separating children from their parents ? and leaving them in cages.

The idea that liberals/leftist activist judges can take away guaranteed rights via the amendment process is emotional nonsense.

Adding the amendment to limit terms of the president to two, was to protect We the People from tyranny.

   The left is the only party that dreams of more than two terms - ONLY when THEY have their president in our WH.

If it isn't their president, they don't want him to have a whole one term.

That is the left - political expediency at it's most dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, as I was expecting, that was a lot of "liberals are bad! they all hate Trump! Activists!" etc etc etc nonsense. I guess I shouldn't be expecting you to look at it from a non partisan view. 

There is nothing that says amendments can't do away with previous ones. That has happened. There is nothing that says once something in place in the Constitution then it always will be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

And weren't some on the right concerned he wasn't conservative enough? Yeesh. We seem to be trending further and further apart. Need that third, moderate party.

He's going to be tough to get through this Congress.

 

Amy Coney Barrett was the favorite, but no way would she have made it through.

After Mid Terms things will be different and she's the favorite to replace RBG.

 

 

 

image.png.4b625ce4ffc03274571a5418ef157f65.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were him I'd burn that painting of higgardly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×